Or do you know the time and expertise it takes to make quality offerings?

Yes I do - not as a coder, but as a program manager on software development efforts for over 15 years. Indeed, producing quality s/w costs money, and I'm not saying they should price it at $4.99, but I consider it a slap in the face when long-time users (upgraders using the previously current version) have to pay the same price as new purchasers to get the new version.

Yes I do - not as a coder, but as a program manager on software development efforts for over 15 years. Indeed, producing quality s/w costs money, and I'm not saying they should price it at $4.99, but I consider it a slap in the face when long-time users (upgraders using the previously current version) have to pay the same price as new purchasers to get the new version.

Our entire outlook on what it takes to create digital goods has long been flawed because we've settled on crappy, free software and pirated the good stuff.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhall1

Yes I do - not as a coder, but as a program manager on software development efforts for over 15 years. Indeed, producing quality s/w costs money, and I'm not saying they should price it at $4.99, but I consider it a slap in the face when long-time users (upgraders using the previously current version) have to pay the same price as new purchasers to get the new version.

Now this I can get behind. I also agree that some sort of consideration should be paid to long-time users.

When Things relaunched as Things 2, they gave it away for free to existing customers. Smart.

As a regular BusyCal user, I was also shocked and disappointed at the lack of a discounted upgrade path. And frankly, it doesn't look like enough of an overhaul for me to feel the need to upgrade at anything other than a nominal price. (Indeed, it seems as though it has LOST some syncing functionality, based on the upgrade notes.)

Glad to see the next version of BusyCal make its debut. However, I find the "upgrade" price unfair. Making the price for BusyCal2 the same for a long time user versus new users makes no sense at all. As a "thank you" to those who have used BusyCal, seems $14.99 would be a more fair price.

From Customer Support at BusyCal:

BusyCal 2 is available exclusively on the Mac App Store.

The Mac App Store doesn't allow us to charge different prices for new or existing customers so we are offering upgrade pricing of $29.99 for all users, new and old.

Glad to see the next version of BusyCal make its debut. However, I find the "upgrade" price unfair. Making the price for BusyCal2 the same for a long time user versus new users makes no sense at all. As a "thank you" to those who have used BusyCal, seems $14.99 would be a more fair price.

From Customer Support at BusyCal:

BusyCal 2 is available exclusively on the Mac App Store.

The Mac App Store doesn't allow us to charge different prices for new or existing customers so we are offering upgrade pricing of $29.99 for all users, new and old.

Yep....I got the same "canned" response. Guess I'll be using Calendar from here on out, or sticking to V1.6 - haven't decided yet. Now that they've gone "App Store" we won't even be seeing BusyCal in a bundle deal any more.

The snooze function offers no additional functionality over Calendar other than being able to adjust the default snooze in the application preferences.

Pre-ML we were able to adjust the snooze at the notification level. Without this, the advantages of Busycal are dwindling. Repeating events - I think that is the other reason I have it. £21? After less than a year with Busycal? Hard to justify.

Interesting to see how the App Store develops to deal with situations like this. Can't be long before we see Apple release paid updates to some of its titles. Perhaps then we will get an upgrade path?

Just discovered the smart filters in v2 - they could be really useful if you often want to view different sets of data in different ways. Easy to set up too.

I've emailed them about the per-notification snooze time option. If they don't get this working in ML it would be a real shame. I assume there are technical hurdles with notification centre, otherwise it would just work the way it did before ML (whereby you could snooze an alert and optionally adjust the snooze time for that individual alert).

Perhaps the dialogues that the notification centre API uses aren't set up for that sort of input?

The reduced functionality and "upgrade" price are the consequences of going MAS. It's really a shame. I finally had a chance this morning to read over the changes in BC2. I was hoping for improvements, an upgrade. My credit card was ready to fork out, but I don't see this as an improvement at all. Publishing calendars was one of the main draws for me - without that I might as well use Calendar.

"As you've noticed, Apple's Notification Center is not very flexible with snoozes. We may consider bringing back our own alarm window with custom snooze capability if enough people hate the new Notification Center integration. I'll add your vote to that camp."

Shame that ML Notification Centre is so limited. No point in snooze if I can't decide there and then when I want to postpone the notification to. Hope Apple make this possible and in the meantime perhaps BusyMac will bring back the functionality via their own notifications.